How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[ElanJo]

The problem is the causal nature you ascribe to Dennetts reasoning. You're saying that Dennett thinks evolution is unguided because he, according to yourself***, says that no God exists.

You haven't shown this to be the case.

***I'm sure that he doesn't believe in a God but I doubt that he makes the claim that no God could exist.

BTW, plenty of religious people, even Christians - such as Kenneth R. Miller - view evolution as unguided. There's a distinction to be made between "guided" evolution and a God using the laws of nature to create sentient life. Evolution is not "guided", without even getting into specifics within the field we can just look to Occam's razor, but I suppose a God could have set the laws of the universe and then sat back and watched the resulting processes uncoil so to speak. A very wasteful and extremely violent (and unnecessarily so) way to go about it I would have thought tho.

Ah, yes, I remember that title. Did Darwin kill God? I think we can say that he killed some conceptions of God but not all.

I don't think I like Miller's idea, he's made a mistake just like Dennett when he wrote "Evolutionary biology supports atheism by providing an explanatory framework for what we might call the genealogy of theology. The Darwinian perspective doesn’t prove that God – in any of his guises – couldn’t exist, but only that we have no good reason to think God does exist. Not a classical reductio ad absurdum argument, then, but nevertheless a rational challenge that reduces the believer’s options to an absurdly minimalist base. As the Reverend Mackerel says, in Peter De Vries’s comic novel, The Mackerel Plaza (1958), “It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.”

I do not think I have misrepresented Dennet's take at all, he's a atheist first and a philosopher of science second and he says what we would expect him to say, often in a very entertaining way.

Just because he's an atheist it doesn't mean that his atheism is the reason he thinks that evolution is unguided.
Do you think that the weather systems of the planet are guided? I highly doubt that you do. Would you accuse Dennett of believing in unguided weather systems because he's an atheist? I highly doubt it. Why then do you do so for evolution?

Would you agree that God isn't needed for evolution to function?

No - God is needed for the universe (or multiverse) to function and evolution is a process within that. Nothing could function if there was nothing. Fortunately for us there is something.

Let's imagine that a God created the universe. It doesn't follow that therefore evolution is guided. The God may have setup the possiblity of evolution but evolution itself functions on its own from thereon out.

 

[sweynforkbeard]

How could an omnipotent, all wise Creator ever have let the French develop?

 

[Barcon]

How could an omnipotent, all wise Creator ever have let the French develop?

In a nutshell.
They were much more likely the work of the tooth bunny.

 

[ElanJo]

prove it johnny if you are so sure, because i ain't

The human mind cannot conceptualise something becoming nothing or vice versa.

In answer to your earlier question:

There is more order in the universe and more inter connectedness than can be explained by reference to evolution, or science in general.

Evolution is not a sufficient explanatory framework. At the moment, it's in the 'add complexity' stage, whereby each challenge is met with another layer of the same argument. But evolution is a linear science and a limited paradigm. Time is not the easy concept Darwin implicitly assumed and neither is the sub atomic fabric of the universe.

There is a linking force. perhaps what Buddhists call a 'oneness'. I understand this as a will. I believe it is God.

Since you're in the mood to answer older questions perhaps you could reply to this from page 9?

Elanjo

Thankyou for your considered reply. Like you, I have heard all the common arguments o both sides and I think we've pretty well exercised those.

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

If the senses are well attuned to the world. If instinct is sharp and adaptive. What does it matter what we think? From an evolutionary perspective beliefs are irrelevant and may even be counter productive. So why are they, and why have they always been, almost universal in humans?

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

Care to give some examples?

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

I'd say that cognition and senses, in the context of my comments, are interchangable. For instance cognition is how we process information and the senses are how we absorb the information. If an eye absorbs the light reflecting off an incoming predator without obstruction or error then that's one thing but if the brain processes that information incorrectly it kind of defeats the prupose of the eye.
If your thinking in different terms then please give an explanation. I'm not a fan of trust in this regard.

If the senses are well attuned to the world. If instinct is sharp and adaptive. What does it matter what we think? From an evolutionary perspective beliefs are irrelevant and may even be counter productive. So why are they, and why have they always been, almost universal in humans?

Evolutionary pressures pick against traits. If something doesn't hinder an organism/population to the point of stopping it reproducing it will likely be passed on.
Beliefs (again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this) can be counter productive sure. For instance if a small tribe believed it to be good (for whatever reason) to steal, murder and lie then that tribe would very very likely die out pretty quickly. Beliefs gets into less about mutations as it does, what Dawkins called, "memes"

Why have beliefs (such as religious belief - I don't want to get bogged down in talking about religion but it's what you're hinted at here, right?) been almost universal? Humans are very similar. We're curious. We want answers. If we can't find the answer we tend to make them up the best we can. I think it's easy to see why early humans thought something or someone controlled the weather etc. And like the puddle that finds itself nestled neatly into the ditch on the side of the road, humans believed - with some justification at that time - that the world was made with them in mind. Whilst we now know better about how the world works I don't think believing the above sorts of things would stop people reproducing and passing on or encouraging such beliefs and practices.

Cheers.

 

[mammutly]

The human mind cannot conceptualise something becoming nothing or vice versa.

In answer to your earlier question:

There is more order in the universe and more inter connectedness than can be explained by reference to evolution, or science in general.

Evolution is not a sufficient explanatory framework. At the moment, it's in the 'add complexity' stage, whereby each challenge is met with another layer of the same argument. But evolution is a linear science and a limited paradigm. Time is not the easy concept Darwin implicitly assumed and neither is the sub atomic fabric of the universe.

There is a linking force. perhaps what Buddhists call a 'oneness'. I understand this as a will. I believe it is God.

Since you're in the mood to answer older questions perhaps you could reply to this from page 9?

Care to give some examples?


I'd say that cognition and senses, in the context of my comments, are interchangable. For instance cognition is how we process information and the senses are how we absorb the information. If an eye absorbs the light reflecting off an incoming predator without obstruction or error then that's one thing but if the brain processes that information incorrectly it kind of defeats the prupose of the eye.
If your thinking in different terms then please give an explanation. I'm not a fan of trust in this regard.



Evolutionary pressures pick against traits. If something doesn't hinder an organism/population to the point of stopping it reproducing it will likely be passed on.
Beliefs (again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this) can be counter productive sure. For instance if a small tribe believed it to be good (for whatever reason) to steal, murder and lie then that tribe would very very likely die out pretty quickly. Beliefs gets into less about mutations as it does, what Dawkins called, "memes"

Why have beliefs (such as religious belief - I don't want to get bogged down in talking about religion but it's what you're hinted at here, right?) been almost universal? Humans are very similar. We're curious. We want answers. If we can't find the answer we tend to make them up the best we can. I think it's easy to see why early humans thought something or someone controlled the weather etc. And like the puddle that finds itself nestled neatly into the ditch on the side of the road, humans believed - with some justification at that time - that the world was made with them in mind. Whilst we now know better about how the world works I don't think believing the above sorts of things would stop people reproducing and passing on or encouraging such beliefs and practices.

Cheers.

If you would care to operationalise your questions, I'd be happy to answer.

However, I'm not going to respond to opinion dressed up as enquiry.

 

[ElanJo]

Since you're in the mood to answer older questions perhaps you could reply to this from page 9?



Cheers.

If you would care to operationalise your questions, I'd be happy to answer.

However, I'm not going to respond to opinion dressed up as enquiry.

Opinion dressed as enquiry? hardly. You asked me why beliefs have been almost universal and I gave you my thoughts on the matter. If you'd rather not respond to that then alright. My questions/requests were on the other subjects anyway.

However, I'm intrigued by the notion of complex cognitions that are congruent with so many facets of reality - most of which have no evolutionary relevance.

Care to give some examples?

cognitions and senses are distinct - I could give you an explanation, but trust me on this, they are.

I'd say that cognition and senses, in the context of my comments***, are interchangable. For instance cognition is how we process information and the senses are how we absorb the information. If an eye absorbs the light reflecting off an incoming predator without obstruction or error then that's one thing but if the brain processes that information incorrectly it kind of defeats the prupose of the eye.
If you're thinking in different terms then please give an explanation. I'm not a fan of trust in this regard.

*** ie. evolutionary pressures and reliablity

 

[tonea2003]

prove it johnny if you are so sure, because i ain't

The human mind cannot conceptualise something becoming nothing or vice versa.

In answer to your earlier question:

There is more order in the universe and more inter connectedness than can be explained by reference to evolution, or science in general.

Evolution is not a sufficient explanatory framework. At the moment, it's in the 'add complexity' stage, whereby each challenge is met with another layer of the same argument. But evolution is a linear science and a limited paradigm. Time is not the easy concept Darwin implicitly assumed and neither is the sub atomic fabric of the universe.

There is a linking force. perhaps what Buddhists call a 'oneness'. I understand this as a will. I believe it is God.

the human mind currently cannot understand something becoming nothing, it maybe in time we will, who's to say we wont

i can go with your first two paragraphs, there is absolutely more to learn, we are probbably only scratching the surface, but none of what you say links to a god
the last paragraph.....is this just a feeling you have or tangible evidence of this linking force and how does this become god?

 

[SWP's back]

Would you agree that God isn't needed for evolution to function?

No - God is needed for the universe (or multiverse) to function and evolution is a process within that. Nothing could function if there was nothing. Fortunately for us there is something.

No, God is not needed. (Thankfully).

Blasted double negatives. To whom is the no directed?

The god botherer

 

[mammutly]

Congruent cognitions - meanings. Beyond consequence any constructed meaning is irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. So why has meaning/belief/delusion/faith, or whatever you want to construe it as, evolved in ways which clearly cause people to counter their own inclusive fitness?
Explain suicide. Explain mass suicide. Explain war. Tribalism? Hardly. Evolutionary theory evades meaning.

Cognitions and senses are different. Interpretation is not necessary for perception - a reflex being the most obvious example<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:45 pm --<br /><br />

The human mind cannot conceptualise something becoming nothing or vice versa.

In answer to your earlier question:

There is more order in the universe and more inter connectedness than can be explained by reference to evolution, or science in general.

Evolution is not a sufficient explanatory framework. At the moment, it's in the 'add complexity' stage, whereby each challenge is met with another layer of the same argument. But evolution is a linear science and a limited paradigm. Time is not the easy concept Darwin implicitly assumed and neither is the sub atomic fabric of the universe.

There is a linking force. perhaps what Buddhists call a 'oneness'. I understand this as a will. I believe it is God.

the human mind currently cannot understand something becoming nothing, it maybe in time we will, who's to say we wont

i can go with your first two paragraphs, there is absolutely more to learn, we are probbably only scratching the surface, but none of what you say links to a god
the last paragraph.....is this just a feeling you have or tangible evidence of this linking force and how does this become god?

I cannot make senses tangible. That would be a miracle!

Show me tangible proof of any perception. lol

 

[lee-mcfc]

i seriously want to understand this thread.. but i dont get it?, too many long words.

*hides* :(